Why should Mary Wollstonecraft be the subject of an issue of an interdisciplinary journal ? She was a remarkable polymath whose work deserves more scholarly attention. Mary Wollstonecraft is doubtless one of the most interesting figures of the 18th century. The daughter of a reverend was a governess, founded her own school, and eventually began to work in publishing. Although she did not have a formal education, this autodidact and free thinker became an assistant for the Analytical Review, where she was responsible for reviews and translations. Among her translations are The Importance of Religious Opinions, Morality, for the Use of Children, and Young Grandison, from French, German and Dutch, respectively. She was a mother before she was a wife at a time when this was uncommon, but most importantly, she pushed ideological envelopes. Although the rights of man was a new concept, she forcefully argued for the inclusion of women. If we stop to consider that women, even today, are underrepresented in most polities, her thought can only be regarded as revolutionary. This rational dissenter always thought things through to their logical conclusions.

As Gough and Gibbels demonstrate, she is an able as well as subtle rhetorician. While her argumentation is relentless, she cloaks it in a mantel that makes it more accessible. Calpe and Wallraven discuss two fictional works that have, for one reason or another, been considered failures. These two contributions illustrate that they are worth reading for their theorization of religion and gender, respectively. Fournier and maier then discuss political and philosophical implications of her thought. Bartlett, in a convincing discourse analysis approach, shows that Wollstonecraft forcefully resisted a construction of feminity as illness. Runcie, in a comparatist piece, presents the dialogical intertextuality inherent in Wollstonecraft’s reading of Rousseau’s novels.

Yet with all these perspectives on her work, there were no articles discussing her travel writing or her biography. In the same manner as Bartlett, who brings a post-structuralist perspective to Wollstonecraft, perhaps post-colonial approaches could also stimulate and enrich reflection on her oeuvre. Likewise, within the scope of her study of rhetoric, Gibbels discusses translations of Wollstonecraft in German, yet none of the proposals for the current issue considered translations done by Wollstonecraft herself. New theoretical perspectives should therefore be considered as an avenue for future studies of Wollstonecraft. In so doing, they would enable a greater appreciation of the extent to which she was an innovator, which is the true meaning of this issue’s title, « Mary Wollstonecraft : Ushering in Contemporary Discourse ».